G.R. No. 115350 & G.R. Nos. 117819-21. September 30, 1996.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RESTITUTO PABALAN y CALILONG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Restituto Pabalan was charged before the Regional Trial Court with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa. The prosecution evidence established that Pabalan, without the requisite license from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), recruited and promised overseas employment to three individuals: June Barrera, Henry Luciano, and Manuel Garcia. He collected substantial sums of money from them for processing fees, plane tickets, and other purported expenses related to securing jobs in Japan. The complainants parted with their money based on Pabalan’s false representations of his capacity to send workers abroad.
Despite receiving payments, Pabalan failed to secure the promised employment. The complainants testified to giving him various amounts: Barrera gave a total of P27,000.00 and $2,500.00; Luciano gave P100,000.00; and Garcia gave P26,000.00 and $1,600.00. Their attempts to follow up yielded only empty promises. The defense, primarily relying on Pabalan’s testimony, claimed the transactions were private loans or business ventures, not recruitment activities, and denied making any employment promises.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Pabalan committed Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the Court held that the elements were conclusively established: (1) Pabalan undertook recruitment activities; (2) he did so without the required POEA license or authority; and (3) he committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. His acts of promising jobs abroad and collecting fees clearly constitute recruitment and placement under the Labor Code. The defense of private loan was rejected as it was uncorroborated and belied by the consistent and credible testimonies of the three complainants, which detailed a common scheme of recruitment.
Regarding Estafa, the Court found that all elements under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code were present: (a) Pabalan made false pretenses of having the power to deploy workers abroad; (b) such pretenses were made prior to or simultaneously with the receipt of money; (c) the complainants were induced to part with their money due to these pretenses; and (d) they suffered damage. The fact that Pabalan failed to secure employment and did not return the money confirms fraudulent intent. The crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa are separate; one can be convicted of both as Estafa punishes the fraud and damage, while Illegal Recruitment punishes the unauthorized recruitment activity itself. The penalties and civil liabilities imposed by the trial court were affirmed.